An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose
Social Security Number (SSN) is being used by President Obama:

Jean
Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890,immigrated to the United
States in 1924,and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (Obama's current SSN)
rec'd on or about March 1977.

Mr.
Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut . Because of that,
his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few
reserved for Connecticut residents.

Barack
H. Obama never lived or worked in that state! Therefore, there is no
reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None
whatsoever!

Now
comes the best part! J. P. Ludwig spent the final months of his life in
Hawaii, where he died. Conveniently, Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne
Dunham, worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii
Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased
individuals.

The
Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig's death,
and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no
benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised.

The
suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a
U.S. Citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of
Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro, simply scoured the
Probate records, until she found someone, who died who was not receiving
Social Security benefits, and selected Mr.. Ludwigs Connecticut SSN for
Obama.

Just
wait until Trump gets past the birth certificate and onto the issue of
Barry O's use of a stolen SSN. You will see leftist heads exploding,
because they will have no way of defending Obama.

Although
many Americans do not understand the meaning of the term "natural born"
there are few who do not understand that if you are using someone
else's SSN it is a clear indication of fraud.

Let's
all get this information out to everybody on our mailing lists. If the
voters of this great nation can succeed in bringing this lying,
deceitful, cheating, corrupt, impostor to justice it will be the biggest
and best news in decades for our country and the world.

If you can just say "oh well; ho hum" after reading this you get what you deserve.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL POLITICAL DIARY ONLINE

09 APRIL 14

Jeb Bush clearly knew the potential for trouble when he told his interviewer Sunday
that his comments were being recorded but, "So be it." A brisk
straightforward start soon evolved into something quite different, which
happens frequently enough in the political world but in Mr. Bush's case
was particularly telling.

The
subject, as most of the world by now knows, was immigrants in the
United States illegally, which he explained was no serious crime but one
driven by the highest of impulses—parental devotion. A fact, his urgent
tone told us, that those holding different views of the immigration
issue and the American audience at large didn't appreciate.

Mr.
Bush expanded on the theme with the now famous claim that people
violating U.S. immigration laws were committing "an act of love." It was
an astounding pronouncement in its fervent simplism and embrace of the
irrational. It was not simply an inartful comment, as Karl Rove called
it. The instincts on display in Mr. Bush's remarks—the silken
demagoguery, the suggestion that Americans who thought the country's
laws mattered were clearly the kind unable to grasp that immigrant
parents loved their children—were hard to miss. After six years of the
Obama administration—which began, recall, with reminders by the
president that the nation had in the nick of time been rescued from a
moral abyss—sermonizing of this kind from Mr. Bush, a potential
presidential candidate, falls hard on the ears.

True,
it's doubtful Mr. Bush will ever be a serious contender for Obama-style
rhetorical laurels. It will be a long while before any candidate ever
beats the terminal double-speak of that golden prose. Last weekend was,
of course, one moment in Mr. Bush's journey—but a kind, if he becomes a
candidate, he'd do well to study.

Money in politics? McCutcheon's foes don't always say no

TRADITIONAL LIBERALS should be cheering the Supreme Court's decision last week in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission,
which reaffirmed a value at the heart of the First Amendment: The best
response to unwelcome or controversial political speech is more
political speech. Democratic self-government depends on the right to
participate in advocacy and debate, and the Constitution reserves some
of its strongest language to support of citizens who choose to exercise
that right: "Congress shall make no law" abridging it.

Protesters rally outside the
Supreme Court during the oral argument in McCutcheon v. FEC. Though
groups opposing the influence of money in politics denounced the court's
ruling, many readily accept unlimited contributions themselves.

But much of the reaction from the left to McCutcheon, which threw out
the aggregate cap on how much money an individual can contribute to
federal candidates or party committees in a given election cycle, has
been apoplectic. The ruling didn't alter the maximum contribution that
can be given to any candidate ($2,600 for each primary or general
election), but by striking down the overall ceiling, it restored the
right of Americans to support as many candidates as they wish.
Yet instead of celebrating this expansion of liberty, many liberals bewail it.
"Make no mistake: This decision is a setback for our freedoms," lamented Montana Senator Jon Tester. On Twitter, his Vermont colleague Bernie Sanders
issued a stream of overwrought comments. "The Supreme Court," read one,
"is paving the way toward an oligarchic form of society in which a
handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will
control our political process." Common Cause pronounced McCutcheon "A Disaster for Democracy," and accused the court of putting out "a welcome mat for corruption."
A similar keening followed the high court's Citizens United ruling
four years ago. That decision restored the traditional First Amendment
right of corporations and labor unions to engage in independent
political expenditures, and liberal critics shrieked that democracy as
we knew it was finished. Someone who didn't know better might imagine
that those dire predictions had come to pass — that determined,
deep-pocketed Republicans could indeed now buy American elections at
will.
Except that nothing of the kind happened. Citizens United
notwithstanding, President Obama was easily reelected. Democrats didn't
lose their Senate majority. "American Crossroads, the super PAC founded
by Karl Rove, spent $104 million in the general election, but none of
its candidates won," gloated The New York Times
in an editorial following the 2012 election. "Sheldon Adelson, the
casino mogul, spent $53 million on nine Republican candidates, eight of
whom lost."
Money is indispensable in politics, but dollars don't vote. Thanks to
Citizens United and now McCutcheon, more candidates have more funds to
run even more ads promoting their ideas and criticizing their opponents.
Yet no matter how often candidates assure us that they "approve this
message," voters, who get the last word, are free to disapprove.
The fulminating against Mammon and its wicked influence on American
democracy might be more persuasive if the fulminators themselves were
careful to shun financial support from well-to-do donors with strong
political interests. On a web page bearing the banner "Money Out/Voters In,"
a coalition of more than 25 activist organizations was encouraging
supporters to register at one of the dozens of "McCutcheon Rapid
Response" rallies scheduled around the country immediately after the
decision was announced. "Get Big Money Out of Politics," urge the
coalition partners, which include Public Citizen, Democracy 21, People for the American Way, MoveOn.org, Common Cause, and The Sunlight Foundation, among others.
Most of those organizations are not only glad to accept financial
contributions, they openly solicit them — many feature a bright red
"DONATE" button on their own website's home page. Would-be donors aren't
cautioned not to give more than $2,600 per year — the maximum that any
individual can give to a federal candidate. On the contrary, the
donation forms are typically set up so that supporters can donate any
amount they wish, just as they can donate to as many different activist
groups as they wish.
Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon went to court because he wished
to donate $1,776 to 28 different candidates, and an arbitrary
campaign-finance cap stood in his way. It is no more a "disaster for
democracy" that the First Amendment protects McCutcheon's freedom to
make those donations than the fact that the same First Amendment
protects the right of other Americans to donate to Common Cause or
Democracy 21. There are many honorable ways to contribute to the
nation's political discourse, to advocate for better government, or to
try to shape the electoral agenda. The First Amendment protects them
all. "The more speech, the better" is an American ideal, and liberals
used to be the first to say so.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

Translate This Blog

Followers

Subscribe To

Search This Blog

About Me

A Texan who loves the truth and hates the lying, cheating, and deliberate prevarication that characterizes so much of our civic discourse these days.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RIPOSTE, n. 1. Fencing: a quick thrust after parrying a lunge 2. a quick sharp return in speech or action; counterstroke.
- The Random House Dictionary of the English Language...........
You can contact me by sending an email to me at: leorugiens23@gmail.com